Are there any other converts from western to japan style saws; or anyone with comparison or comments?
Do you flunk Traditional if you use a japan saw rather that western?
My wife bought me a folding Dozuki for xmas, 10 years ago. I was impresses with the speed of cut(about 10 strokes to cut a 2×4), you didn’t have to kneel on the board to hold it down, you could cut a kerf off the end, and the cut was a finished cut.
If I make a long rip, I still use a western rip, or more likely, a table saw, but all crosscuts are done with a japan saw.
The fineness of cut, and the thin kerf, and the ease of holding down, I find to be some of the most useful aspects.
Pedro
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Just as debates about pure hand and pure power make little sense to me, debates about Japan vs. Western make little sense. Both have their places and often can duplicate each other's results. It comes down to personal preferences as far as the tools you like to use to achieve those results. The wood doesn't care how it's cut and the user of the furniture doesn't much care how the components' dimensions were arrived at. Attitudes that smack of "if you don't do it my way, you're ignorant because my way (and my choosen tool) is best" are just juvenile.
I have a cross cut dozuki which I like for things like tenon shoulders. I have a rip dozuki which I like as much as my LN DT saw for cutting dovetails. I have a Ryoba with rip on one side and cross cut on the other which I adore for rough shaping of carvings in the round projects I often do (American Bison underway now). I have a japanese flexible flush cut saw that is as good and useful as my veritas versions.
I'm perplexed by Adam's claims that Japanese saws are unfit for Western style work. I obviously don't understand in what way he thinks the saws obscure the sawers view. I've never felt I had that problem when cutting with my Japanese saws. Perhaps he'll join this thread and expound on his views.
"Do you flunk Traditional if you use a japan saw rather that western?"
In a word (with an exclamation): NO!
Let me go WAY out on a limb here and suggest that eastern tooling predates western tooling. So, how do we define traditional?
I use Dozukis (exclusively) for dovetailing and assorted joinery. They're wonderful saws. Most important: Carpal Tunnel and the mush that once was my wrist finds relief in the pull saw. If your saw gets the job done, then good for you. Others: good for them.
Just to set everyone's mind at rest, I don't think anybody suggested that Japanse saws were bad or inferior or that the people who use them are flatulent or have bad breath. Really, I started the other threads bcause more is said abut Japanese saws these days, and there is often a suggestion that it is the western saws are inferior. These threads have not debatd, or even raised the question of one vs the other in a competitive sense. The discussion has purely been abotut the merits of western saws.No hand saw is necessary for most things these days, unless you just want to use one. So, Japanese, Western, or both, here's to it!Tradition relates only to the culture in which it exists, BTW. Japanse saws are certainly traditional to Japan, but not to us. Of course, that has nothing at all to do with whether or not they are good and useful tools that we would do well to adopt.Edited 3/7/2007 7:40 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Edited 3/7/2007 7:42 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
FWIW, what I was referring to was then in the other thread Adam said:
"...you can't control a cut you can't see which is exactly why I don't like the way western woodworkers use japanese saws. You can only control, what I call "the cut"; the point at which the teeth enter the wood on the power stroke. Japanese craftsmen, as I understand their technique, don't work from the back side of the wood. They have a hands under, eye's over technique. So they are watching the cut as well."
I don't understand why he thinks viewing the blade entry on the "power stroke" is so important as opposed to say watching the blade exit on the power stroke. If I'm cutting a dovetail with a Dozuki rip saw for example, I can see the whole top of the end grain and thus the entry on that line. I can also see the teeth exiting the cut on the vertical line defining the side of the pin or tail. If I am keeping my saw straight up and down, the entry side should be taking care of itself just as the exit side takes care of itself when using a Western DT saw.
re: being able to see the cut or not with using Japanese/western sawsI use Japanese saws, and am a relative beginner at this woodworking thing. But one thing I learned pretty quickly is that with the pull saws, sawdust tends to gather on your cut line, which I think some look at as a disadvantage of Japanese saws.But there is an easy way to deal with this. Don't look at the spot where the blade is cutting. Remember, with Japanese saws you cut on the pull stroke, which means that the blade is under tension, and is being pulled straight. I've learned to trust this, look at the cut line a few inches away from where the saw is, and aim the saw for that spot. This does take some practice, but no more so than to build good sawing techniques using a western saw.Experienced car drivers know that they should not look at the car directly in front of them, but to keep their eyes aimed more towards the horizon at the road ahead. This is pretty much the same principle.
Yeah, maybe that's what he's referring to.
But two things:
I find Western saws can deposit dust on saw lines in various operations too.
and
I don't think good sawers are stiffly guiding the saw to the line. Instead the effort is more fluid - like your example of looking ahead as you go drive and not at the small area immediately in front of the car - or like when throwing a ball once you mastered the basics of coordination: we may look where we want the ball to go, but our brain guides our muscles without much conscious thought to actually execute the throw. Same with sawing - your eyes help with aim, so to speak, but you body does most of the alignment by "feel" as informed by experience and learned coordination.
I threw in the question about Traditional in the hopes of creating some interest and comment, and did. It is of no real concern to me, probably because I don't try to be Traditional, and am not interested in it. Use the best tool for the job, for me it is usually a japan saw, and I consider the technology to be better than western, but that is my opinion, and thats all. I have mentioned in the original post the advantages I see in a japan saw, and am interested in others comments on use.
Pedro
The original question raised my hackle: "Do you flunk Traditional if you use a japan saw rather that western?"My answer was, and will remain: NO.I simply advocate that makers use what makes them best and disregard any notion that the use of one tool over another side-steps tradition. "Tradition relates only to the culture in which it exists, BTW. Japanse saws are certainly traditional to Japan, but not to us."Are we all "western"?Personal experience: If you suffer with wrist ailments, take a long hard look at pull saws.
Edited 3/7/2007 8:27 pm ET by beachfarm
Hey, guys, if you like the tool, and if you can make good stuff with it, that is the only test you need. If Japanse saws are what you like, so be it. You will not be doing "traditional" western work, but who cares? If traditional western methods ring your bells, as they do Adam's, then you won't use Japanses saws. However, neither the furniture nor the people who use it will know or care which saws you use.
I'd like to get away from the metaphysical aspects of Japanse and western methods and really talk about the tools and what they can do -- not better, not worse, just what they can do and their fitness for various purposes.
And, just to settle things a bit, no, we probably are not all western. This is a global web site. But we were talking for two threads worth about western saws, and more specifically the saws of the English speaking world, and I am certainly western, so i used the term in that way
Edited 3/7/2007 8:41 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
The original question raised my hackle: "Do you flunk Traditional if you use a japan saw rather that western?"
My answer was, and will remain: NO.
I think there are many qualifiers to the original question (i.e traditional Japanese woodworking, traditional western woodworking etc...) However in the sense of I am building this Shaker ________ (or whatever) in the traditional way, if a Japanese saw is used then technically traditional methods have not been followed. Clearly they were not using Japanese saws. Tradition covers the method of work and the tools used, both of which would be modified by the use of the Japanese saw. Tradition is based on the location of the style as well as the time period it developed.
Arguably you could say you're using 2006's traditional methods to make a contemporary chair...
Very few woodworkers are building in the 'traditional' way anymore. We find the methods that work best for us (Japanese or European) and get on with it.Are we all "western"?
Areguably unless you're Eastern, you're likely to be Western.
beach
I couldn't agree with you more. If one can cut perfect joinery with a serated spoon, then have at it!! Well made tools are an obvious benefit to any woodshop. The learning curve to getting good should be made that much easier by them, but the tools don't make the woodworker. They make the woodworker's job easier.
East vs. West and all that riggamarole (is that a word?)is a topic for collectors, not woodworkers. It's the quality of the furniture or cabinetry that counts, not the tools.
Jeff
Jeff,
I agree with what you're saying, however I think you missed the original question. The OP asked if using a Japanese saw would still be considered traditional. If you used a serated spoon to cut all your dovetails you would not be cutting them in a traditional method, western or Japanese...
You are correct this is largly an acedemic question. It's really only important to someone claiming they use traditional methods. For the bulk of us making fine furniture any tool to get the job done would be acceptable (Japanese, Western, Power...). I would also add that one could claim to make furniture 'by hand' and still use any non power tools available, but this still is not traditional.
I'm saying this beyond any Eastern vs. Western tool argument, but as a whole. Traditional methods are defined by the tools and the way they are used.
Buster
Buster
I really don't think I missed the original question. He asked about flunking traditional if eastern tools are used vs. western, and my reply was what I wrote to beachfarm, agreeing with him. It's just my opinion.
I think most woodworkers, whether hobbyist or earning a living at it, feel a bit of the romance of working wood the way our great, great grandparents did. I know I do. I really can't explain it, but I get much more of a feeling of accomplishment when I build a piece with hand tools, than when I am cranking out yet another cabinet job with a deadline using every power tool at my disposal for speed.
Whether cutting dovetails by hand with a dozuki saw, a fine western saw from Lie Nielsen, or Mike Wenzlof (I hear his saws are all the rage, although I have yet to have the pleasure), I personally consider the task traditional woodworking. My snide comment about the serated spoon was more likely a product of my pissy mood yesterday after a long day covered in sawdust, but my intent was to put forth that regardless of the origin of technique, working in handtools is, at least to me, traditional woodworking.
I'm no historian, but in agreement with beachfarm, the eastern culture far outdates the western culture. You can't get much more traditional than that.
Have a fine day,
Jeff
Jeff,
What was with yesterday? I was in a bad moon as well.
What I was getting at is building furniture with handtools, while involving great skill, is not necessarily traditional. If you're using japanese saws you're probably not working in the same way that your grandfather did.
Tradition by definition is historical, and specific to a group. Since Japanese saws are specific to Asian woodworking, it would be non-traditional in use with Western tools. I'm just being nit-picky on definitions.
Buster
Buster, I agree with your definition, and I am surprised that anyone gets prickley or takes offense. After all, no one is saying it is bad or less skillful to use different methods than your great grandfather did.I am very fond of most kinds of Oriental food. I eat them fairly often. They taste good and are often more nutritious than the usual western diet. Still, while they are traditional to the Thias or the Vietnamese, of the Japanese, they are not traditional to me. When I eat them I am eating in someone elses tradition, and relishing every bite.So, if you want to work in the English-speaking tradition, it is "western" saws. If you want to work in the Continental or Scandik tradition it is bowsaws, I guess, ala Tage. And if you just want to do fine work by hand by whatever means works best for you, you really shouldn't care where your tool came from.But you won't be traditional. Do you care?
Reading back on this thread I realize that my comments were more than just a little cranky. Apologies, all around.I blame cabin fever, the price of fuel and a crack in my "glue pot".
Any converts? well ya. Me, with qualifications. Back in the late 70's tashiro started me out with Japanese "toy" saws. Worked well for many years.
After many years of protecting them, the blades finally needed replacement. New blades on, nice and sharp. Lasted less than a day when a worker tried to cut though drywall corner bead. Very few teeth left.
I respect the concept of the japanese tooth, and have tried several over the years. Some have been so aggressive that they bounced around, while others had so much "grab" that they seemed to function at cross puposes to the zen of fineness of cut one might reasonably expect from such a device.
Now if the blade don't fold up and be protected, I make a sleeve out of 1/8" ply to do so.
Hit a knot and yer odds on to break a tooth. Hit a brad or nail and yer certain to. Learning curve stuff. None of my sharpeners is gonna resharpen these puppies, so they become defacto disposables. The effort is in keeping the time between disposals as long as possible.
They ain't a tool for the uninitiated if long life is expected. And a tad of protection will make them last soooo much longer.
Tashiro was oh so wise when he started me out with the "toy saw". In fact his first question to me was "have you used on of these before?"
Just a lesson learned on the slippery slope, and now shared.
Eric
These saws can be fragile. My first experience came with a cheap Dozuki and the end grain of curly hard maple. <Brrrrip...> "Where'd the teeth go?" :)
In all sinceity, although I started Saws parts one and deux to learn about western saws, I am also interested i the japanses ones and would be delighted to hear about the different types and the strengths and weaknesses of each.
BTW, just as a heads up == because this thread is about Japanses saws, and because we got off into the philosophy of tradition, I posted another western-saw question over in Saws, part Deux. It has to do with an unusual tooth pattern in a Belknap I have.
Hi Joe, I think you should look at the Disston D-17 4 Teeth+1[deep gullet etc, hope this is of some use to you. from accross the pond top-o-morning to ya!
I'll do it. That Belknap has other oddities too, that I will post on the Part Deux thread. What part of "across the pond" are you posting from? Is March 17th of any significance?
Tap-o-the-marnin Joe, sure and there won't be a dry throat in the whole of Clonmany! hope you get that saw up and running before the lovely day dawns slaithe.
Few dry here, either, what with the real, the wannabe, and the party-for-any-occasion all taken together. Even the Baptists have a few, so long as they are not in the company of co-religionists.
Edited 3/10/2007 8:20 am ET by Joe Sullivan
I tip my hat to you bhoyo, what would I give for a pt. o-the black-stuff it would be nice if you all wood join us, lets get back to this saw of your'n what have you progressed so far into the deep gulet's man that black stuff fare tickle's my thrapple the first 4 teeth are possible lance teeth with the cullet being rip this is a saw so desind to cut fast crosscut I have never known it on rip op. sorry to be in the past that is why my name is munchkin, when you serve time before the mast and know time in Old Kil. then I serve my time from 1952 what a nice year to start an appentice under a foreman who not only taught you to sharpen saws etc. may the good Lord bless him by now Joe you should have two files 1 a lance tooth and the other a 1.1/2round edge may the good Lord + be with you when you start praise Him at the end Slanthe'
Japanese saws cut on the pull stroke. The weight of your arm and the applied downward force move the saw through the stock. That results is control. I can move a Dosuki through stock very slowly while concentrating on a scribe line and still get the job done in just a few strokes. Somewhere in there is the advantage of their thin kerf: thin kerf = less effort and/or faster cut without increased effort.For joinery, I use a Dosuki. It's rigid back helps with control (making it ideal for precise joinery) but limits the depth of cut. For the type of work I do, the limitations are not an issue.To solve the issue of limited range of depth, I bought a Kataba. Basically, it's a Dosuki without the back. For joinery in 8/4 stock (let's say) it is ideal.Trimming through tenons and pegs, I use a Kugihiki (flush cutting saw). I have a "western" version but it doesn't perform as well as the Japanese saw. With the western saw, I have to clean a trimmed peg with a chisel and, occasionally, that leaves an egg shaped peg. The Kugihiki leaves a surface that need only be scraped. No sanding. Perfectly round pegs.For site work, I can't imagine not having a Ryoba. It's not a "go to" tool but there are times during an installation when flush cutting and fitting can only be done with a Ryoba (or similar). I use disposable Ryoba because sheet rock and nails leave damage that cannot be repaired.I have a Kogiki (noguri) - a timber saw. Rarely use it. It's almost a novelty but would be ideal if I wanted to resaw by hand.And on the subject of disposable, I agree with Pedro that Japanese saws are moving away from shapenable (?) blades. It's a task I'm not going to undertake. Few people do. Most of my applications are cross cutting but almost all Japanese saw come as either rip or crosscut. I rip with a table saw.The learning curve is steep but that's true for any tooling. If you don't own a "Jap Saw", start with a cheap Dosuki. Cheap, because you WILL ruin your first blade. Dosuki, because it's the most versatile of the bunch.---Edited to add:I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise with all-things-Eastern that the attraction to Japanese saws comes down to "efficiency". Not only does a Japanese saw require less energy to produce accurate joinery, a single tool will perform a wider variety of tasks. I can cut a piece of stock to length, cut tenons and or dovetails in the stock, shape the stock (yes, you can follow curves) and then trim the finest inlays placed into the stock - all with ONE saw. In some way, that offsets the disposable nature (cost) of the new blades. Retailers call the blades replaceable... same thing.Regards.
Edited 3/9/2007 6:47 pm ET by beachfarm
Very interesting on the Japanese saws. I will have to try a Dosuki. One question, though: you said that the weight of the arm aids the cut; do you mean that you hold the saw UNDER the workpiece, or that it is the weight of the arm swinging back after you push forward?
Edited 3/9/2007 8:25 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Joe,Because Japanese saws cut on the pull stoke, the positioning is somewhat different than using a Western saw. One can put the board on a bench, hold the piece with one hand, and saw on the line with the other starting on the far side of the board, in much the same position as you would with a Western saw.Another way to position the board is to put it on a bench, crouch down in front of the board, hold the saw so that it is mainly vertical, with the handle of the saw painting towards the floor, and start the cut on the line on the edge of the board closest to you. The sawing action is pulling down towards the floor, which means that the action of sawing also will help hold the board to the bench. It would be difficult-to-impossible to do a similar action using a Western saw. It may not seem comfortable crouching down, but it's easier than it sounds, and you don't have to worry about killing your back by bending over the board.This is probably what is meant by the weight of your arm aiding the cut -- it's acting to pull the blade through the cut, which is more efficient than pushing the blade through the cut.Wilbur
I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise with all-things-Eastern that the attraction to Japanese saws comes down to "efficiency".
Any real efficiency in the Japanese saw would be lost in the way westerners use them. Eastern efficiencies are often lost on westerners. Japanese do not stand at western benched...
Buster,You mean, if I was Japanese I'd get more miles per gallon out of a Prius?
No, automobiles are a western invention. They drive cars the same way we do...
Don't get me wrong I think Japanese saws are great. For $25 you can get a Japanese saw that performs better than a western saw that's three times the cost. I have used them myself. It truly is a matter of preference. To put some sort of mystical qualities such as "They're more efficient because they're Japanese..." is bull. The Japanese do many things in a very particular way, not all of them are more efficient and not all of them translate into western culture very well.
Its my opinion that the popularity of Japanese saws has more to do with their relative quality rather than than any uniqueness about them. The quality of readily available Western saws is pitifull. I was given a Pax dovetail saw from Lee Valley, it cost $100 Cdn., and it sucks. (I could get it sharpened and set properly...) How can that compete against a $25 Japanese rip saw that cuts well out of the box?
My good western saw vs. my Japanese saws? I prefer the Western, but that's just a matter of taste. I've been using them since I was very young, so they are more intuitive. Again it is a personal choice, and the Wstern vs. Japanese saw areguments are a matter of ego.
Just chipping in here....
"I was given a Pax dovetail saw from Lee Valley, it cost $100 Cdn., and it sucks. (I could get it sharpened and set properly...) How can that compete against a $25 Japanese rip saw that cuts well out of the box?"
Let us just substitute the words "rip saw" for dovetail saw in the above statement, so we can compare like with like.
Once that Pax is restored to the way it should have been it will compete with the Japanese saw very well: because the teeth will stay set and will be easy to sharpen, unlike the Japanese saw which requires a lot of finicky maintainance if it is one type or throwing away when blunt if it is the other type.
The Pax will simply outlast the competitor.Philip Marcou
Philip,
I agree, I've seen some incredible results with a $12 Gents saw (originally filed for crosscut) that was reshaped, sharped and set for rip (for about $25). A $35 Japanese saw would skip the sharpening process, and would work directly out of the box... Of course the real value is that the gents saw could be maintained in the shop, whereas the Japanese saw would have to be replaced.
It's kind of funny. The forum spends so much time talking about chisels and planes, but very little about saws. No one would expect to bring home a chisel or a plane and put it into service right away without honing, but it's exactly what we expect of our saws.
Buster
Whatever. I'm just offering an opinion (based on considerable experience) to the seemingly bottomless trough of "expert" opinions here at FineWoodArgueing.com...
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but anyone have an opinion about Coke versus Pepsi?
I have a question:
I'm wondering about the context of tools and if one can "flunk traditional" by removing a tool from its original context. And I want to know what you think.
Here's where I'm coming from with this:
First, I thought the whole concept of "flunking traditional" was preposterous, but as i read the responses, it started to dawn on me. You "flunk traditional" when you skip or flaunt history in your work (out of ignorance or arrogance). So I'd say that while using japanese saws is not "flunking traditional", using them like western saws would earn you that F (and I see a lot of that). That's just my opinion.
But here's my question again: what about using traditional tools in non-traditional materials, or for projects they weren't designed for? For example; I've not seen that much great japanese cabinetry. Japanese saws seem to be mainly carpenters' tools. What traditional japanese furnishings I've seen all seem to be essentially timberfames (what I would call joined) on a small scale.
So when I use a saw, I'm often looking to rip 8' long, 1" thick stock. I'm not sure japanese saws were designed for this sort of work. Its not that they can't do it. But japanese craftsmen probably either used a big frame saw for this, or did it infrequently enough to be okay.
If you're following me, (if I made this clear) I'd like your thoughts. And just in case you're interested, while I'm writing here about japanese saws and the context of their use, I'm really thinking about 18th century workbenches. Its essentially the same issue, different example.
TIA,
Adam
Hi Adam,
Talking of mixing traditional technologies. I had a fellow working in the shop with me years ago, and one morning he walks in with a new Japanese saw that he'd ordered. Raved about its sharpness and ease of cut, narrow kerf, etc, etc. That is, til he went to crosscut a bit of work at the bench using his western-style bench hook. It was a classic case of culture clash. After standing in thought for a minute,he tried using the hook by hooking it over the back side of the benchtop, but of course couldn't see the work too well that way, and it was a bit of a stretch to reach it. Sometimes the methodologies just don't mix that well.
Ray
Adam:Very provocative question that I have been thinking about now for some time before answering. It is a question that comes up in other fields of interest to me, especially fly fishing and horsemanship. Essentially, it seems to be a question of definitions. What does "traditional" mean, anyway? I would suggest that "traditional" be taken quite literally as meaning "in the tradition of" something. This differs from the concept of "period," which, I would argue, is a subset of "traditional." This distinction is of the essence of the discussion, because a tradition evolves and changes over time, whereas a "period" is a frozen moment in time. Much of the work that you do, or at least the part that you photograph and write up on your blog is "period" work. You use tools that were used at a specific point in time in the evolution of woodworking in the English-speaking world. The Williamsburg folks are period woodworkers par excellance. Another way to think of "period" work is to think of it as a type of "living history."Traditions only exist in the context of a specific people. A given tradition is always relative to many other traditions, which add up to a culture -- the way we do things. So, as in the comment made by another poster, the saw type inherited from England works better with western workbenches and bench hooks that does a Japanese saw that was developed by people who did things quite differently. As a people moves forward through time, traditions tend to absorb and envelope new things learned from other people. It is quite possible that Japanese saws will at some point be fully integragted into the western, and specifically English-derived woodworking tradition. This hasn't quie happened, but it might. You will be able to tell it has happened because people will have stopped talking about the novelty of Japanses saws and will take them for granted, and also will have developed a set of tools and techniques that go with them, that are also taken for granted in the same way that bench hooks are by us today.Of course, in the post-industrial world, one could certainly argue that power tools are part of the western/English-derived woodworking tradition. That is really quite true. We are an industrialized people. So, we must draw the distinction of saying that our interest is in traditional methods of hand-crafting wood. Even that is a bit slippery. I have a friend in the north woods who earns a living making very fine windsor chairs using hand saws, a spring-pole lathe, and draw knives. If he gets tired one day, fires up his generator, and runs his bandsaw is he no longer in the handcrafting tradition? I would argue that he has not left the tradition, but he is not doing true period work. On the other hand, if he were to shift to Japanese tools, I would argue that he is building traditional furniture in a non-traditional way.Anyway, I must get back to earning a living or some very traditional bill collectors will be calling me. Do these musings make sense?Joe
Adam,
Interesting question (you have this nasty habit of regularly generating thought-provoking questions and comments, my friend....).
Whether one "flunks traditional" certainly depends on one's definition of "traditional," or perhaps more precisely, on which tradition(s) and the degree of (historical authenticity/fidelity used in trying to attain the) "traditional" that one wants to pursue.
Would it be "flunking traditional" to mix 18th and 19th century technology and methodology in building an 18th century style piece? Put another way, would one be flunking if one (partially) used 1870s/1880s technology/(hand) tools to build an 1790s-era piece?
My answer would be "yes." If one wants to be historically accurate and "traditional" in the building methodology, then one must, obviously, (research and) follow that methodology accurately. That would mean, among other things, using wooden planes vs metal or transitional planes; probably using a frame or bow saw, rather than a Disston-style hand saw (I might be off a few years on this one...); using individually profiled wooden moulding planes vs a Stanley #45/#55; etc.
Another example: would it be "flunking traditional" to use 18th century technology, joinery methods, then-commonly available wood species (say, oak, or black walnut, or [real] mahogany) to build a Chippendale-style (even going to the extent of using some of the patterns in his book) entertainment center to hold a TV and stereo system? The building of the piece would use building methods, materials, and tools appropriate to the era -- hide glue, planing and scraping, linseed oil and/or shellac, wooden planes with cast steel laminated irons, no tailed apprentices, etc.
My answer to this one would also be "yes;" one has "flunked traditional" because such a piece didn't exist in the 18th century; in fact, it couldn't exist, because TVs and stereos didn't exist then.
Perhaps a nit-picky aspect to the question: would one be "flunking traditional," if one used (as much as is currently known) era-appropriate tools and methodologies in a shop that had electric lighting and modern (gas, fuel oil, or electric) heating in it? Or in a shop that has modern features -- such as a linoleum-tile floor, etc. -- in it?
Strictly speaking, I suspect the answer is again, "yes," but I find this one a bit more vexing....
In practical terms, I suspect that the actual degree of "traditional" that we are able to attain will always be somewhat limited because of the relative lack of knowledge and documentation available to get the little things "right." By "little things," I mean those every-day things that people just did as a matter of course; things that everyone "knew;" things that never got written down or otherwise documented because they were so commonplace.
Regardless of that, I don't think that we should stop trying. Currently-available knowledge of the past is orders of magnitude more complete than it was even 20 or 30 years ago; the same kind of increase in knowledge is likely to happen in the next 20 or 30 years, as we become better at discovering the past, and as new historical items come to light.
This question is similar, in some ways, to the previously-discussed question of whether we can build 18th-century pieces today. My answer would be "no," simply because we no longer are in the 18th century. We can build 18th century-style pieces or reproductions of 18th century pieces, but not 18th century pieces. Same thing applies to any other by-gone era: at risk of a BFO, we can no longer build 20th century pieces...because we're now in the 21st century....
Great question!!! I'd be interested to see your thoughts on this, as well.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Adam,
I read this when it was originally posted, and have been thinking about it since. This is more of an acedemic discussion rather than a practical one. It's a matter of marketing.
I have to agree with Joe on most points. Tradition really is a matter of definition. Tradition, like the 'woodworking', is a rather broad term. Most people refer to hand too use as traditional, but technically there is no reason why we could not include power tools and such in traditional woodworking. So in that sense all woodworking is traditional, however in that sense it's a fairly meaningless description.
I think traditional needs some qualitfiying to have any real meaning. For instance: I build furniture in traditional 18th century techniques, or I work wood using traditional Japanese tools. So in the first example you'd fail your 18th century tradition by using a Stanley plane, and the second by using Western saws...
Buster
I'm wondering about the context of tools and if one can "flunk traditional" by removing a tool from its original context.
Traditional in process or traditional in result? If results are what count, then whatever works to achieve that result is fine. The wood won't know and neither will the person viewing/using the furniture. If I cut two sets of dovetails and on one use a rip dozuki and the other a rip LN DT saw, I would defy you to tell me which was which once they were assembled. If I rip one table leg blank with a TS, another with a bandsaw, and third with a Wenz hand saw and the fourth with a <shudder> D-8 and then proceed to plane, carve, or otherwise finish the legs, you will have no way to tell how the rough dimensioning was accomplished nor will it matter a whit to the quality of the piece.
Here's where I'm coming from with this:
First, I thought the whole concept of "flunking traditional" was preposterous, but as i read the responses, it started to dawn on me. You "flunk traditional" when you skip or flaunt history in your work (out of ignorance or arrogance).
What does "flaunt history" mean? Is that like showing off historical aspects? How would one do such a thing? Skipping historical aspects is self-evident. But it's also a tautology: something is not traditional if the qualities that mark it as of that "tradition" are omitted.
So I'd say that while using japanese saws is not "flunking traditional", using them like western saws would earn you that F (and I see a lot of that). That's just my opinion.
As I asked at the beginning of this thread, could you please be more specific as to what you are talking about here. How "should" japanese saws be used in your opinion. How shouldn't they? What is "using them like Western saws" exactly?
But here's my question again: what about using traditional tools in non-traditional materials, or for projects they weren't designed for?
What sort of non-traditional materials are you talking about? If this is a reference to the idea that Japanese saws are not meant for use in hard wood, I just have to say my expereince is otherwise. My japanese saws do very well in any maple, cherry, walnut, etc. that I throw at 'em.
As for using tools for projects they weren't designed for, hey, if it works it works. Just because a designer failed to foresee all potential uses for given tool does not mean that the tool is unfit for the given "non-traditional" job. That said, its always a mistake to the wrong tool for a given task. For example, I would not want to rip an 8 foot plank with coping saw. I'm sure it could be done, but definitely not optimally.
For example; I've not seen that much great japanese cabinetry.
Have you looked? I mean are you saying you are ignorant of it (have literally nor been exposed to it/don't know much about it) or that you have seen plenty and none was "great?"
Japanese saws seem to be mainly carpenters' tools.
Should I take the "seem" to indicate this is conjecture? Cause to an untrained eye I would guess a Wenz cabinetmaker's beauty and a Disston framer's utility saws look pretty much alike, but you'd think someone was kind of all wet to say that "Western saws seem to be mainly carpenters' tools, right?
What traditional japanese furnishings I've seen all seem to be essentially timberfames (what I would call joined) on a small scale.
You might want to do a google search (try "antique japanese furniture"). There are all sorts of sources. Plenty of mid-1800's examples of various boxes/chests, tables, dressers. To me they don't look crude or like timber frames, but maybe I don't understand what you mean by "essentially timberframes."
So when I use a saw, I'm often looking to rip 8' long, 1" thick stock. I'm not sure japanese saws were designed for this sort of work.
You're "not sure." Perhaps some research is in order? We could call Japan Woodworker and ask what saw a traditional Japanese furniture maker would have used to perform this task, as undoubtedly they had to perform it. Judging by the Japanese's other quality tools, I'm guessing they had a decent answer.
Its not that they can't do it. But japanese craftsmen probably either used a big frame saw for this, or did it infrequently enough to be okay.
Ditto my prior response re research. And why would you think they ripped long stock any less frequently than their Western counterparts?
If you're following me, (if I made this clear) I'd like your thoughts. And just in case you're interested, while I'm writing here about japanese saws and the context of their use, I'm really thinking about 18th century workbenches. Its essentially the same issue, different example.
I could tell you must be thinking about something else. ;-)
Edited 3/20/2007 4:04 pm ET by Samson
You guys are thinking about this deeper than I was. When I watch videos of guys using dozukis they are almost always using them like western saws. But dozukis were designed to be used differently. So by abandoning the traditional japanese technique, I wonder if they aren't losing some of the advantages of that tool. I mean, if you're going to use it like an English dt saw, why not just use the saw designed for that technique? Last year, I made some new cabinets for my kitchen. I'm a pretty good craftsman, my work is nationally recognized, but ya know, I can't make kitchen cabinets. That's not what I do, any more than bricklaying is. My tools and skills are not developed for working plywood, or that type of butt joinery. What I did is realign my cabinets to my skills. I found it faster and easier to make maple dovetailed drawers. I had some successes; I used my hollows and rounds to duplicate the CMT raised panel router bits. Otherwise, my struggle was an example of how my tools and skills fit narrowly into a traditional framework. Inside that, they work great. Outside, they work differently at best and loose their advantage at worst. That's the context I'm talking about.So I'm looking at these workbenches- And they're really joiners benches. There's no indication that they were used by cabinetmakers. So I'm hesistant to say they are advantageous for cabinetmakers. Cabinetmaking by hand is really different than joinery. Let me know what you think.AdamP.S. I've been called a purist. I think japanese saws should be used with japanese techniques an maybe even japanese joinery, materials, etc. And while some of you may think the term fits me (I think that's where Samson was going, but too polite to name call), I certainly don't think of it that way. I think of it as leveraging the experience of others. That's as deep as I can think about the definition of "traditional".
Edited 3/20/2007 7:48 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Well, gee. And I just finished another long response to the question you didn't ask in the first place. My family says this happens a lot at home...Joe
My short answer to your real question is, "you're right." Tools evolve for specific purpoes and often they don't do well outside that purpose. A broad axe WILL cut down a tree, but oh lordy, why not use somethng designed for the purpose?On the other hand, maybe Japanese saws are great crossover tools.And on the third hand, I still think that some of Japanese tools were so successful here because power tools virtually did away with a top quality western hand tools and so there was a niche waiting to be filled. Since I staarted the saws threads I have gotten my hands on some really good saws, and the difference is astounding. If, back in the day, everyone had had LN of Wenz saws or the equivalent there would likely have been a much smaller adoption of Japanese saws.I don't have a fourth hand.Cheers!Joe
Adam,
<<So I'm looking at these workbenches- And they're really joiners benches. There's no indication that they were used by cabinetmakers. So I'm hesistant to say they are advantageous for cabinetmakers. Cabinetmaking by hand is really different than joinery.>>
Hmmm.... Been thinking about this for a couple of days.... Historically, I suspect that, at least in pre-industrial North America, many woodworkers used whatever flavour of bench was handy/available, particularly in areas away from the woodworking "centers" (Philly, Boston, Newport, Charleston, etc ).
That may well not be the case in (many) European countries, particularly when the guilds had virtual monopoly control over the various trades and could specify (and enforce) things like lengths and content of apprenticeships, how many apprentices a master could take on in what period of time, what to charge for a given service or type of merchandise, etc. In those countries during the reign of the guilds, I suspect that a joiner was regulated into using a "joiner's" bench, and a cabinetmaker was also regulated into using a "cabinetmaker's" bench, etc. This over and above the simple fact that joiner's and cabinetmaker's benches evolved into forms that were/are well-suited for doing joiner's and cabinetmaker's work, respectively.
As you're no doubt better aware than I am, in the 17th/18th centuries, there were several styles of work benches available -- French, German, English, etc. -- to the contemporary woodworker, depending on nationality, what he was apprenticed on, etc. Today, we can choose from and take advantage of any/all of those styles, and even combine some of the best features of two or more of them into one bench; done carefully, it could create "the ultimate work bench." LOL
For our purposes today -- since many (most??) of us are largely self-taught -- I'm not sure that the style of bench that one uses is all that important beyond it fitting in with the way one works, unless one wants to do as-close-to-as-is-currently-possible traditional/period woodworking, using period-appropriate tools, techniques, designs, etc.
I currently use a 94" X 24" Sjöbergs Scandinavian-style cabinetmaker's bench, with the L-shaped end vice, a front vice, and one row of square dog holes (and I'm about as far away from being a traditional Scandinavian cabinetmaker as you can get....). ;-) While it largely meets my requirements, and fits my work habits pretty well, it does have some (relatively minor) limitations that require ocassional work-arounds. But, overall, I like the bench and the way it fits my work habits, etc. Yet, despite the fact that my current bench is generally very satisfactory, I have a rather strong desire to build a bench similar to the Roubo-type bench that Chris Schwartz built and wrote about. There is something about the simplicity, versatility, and massiveness of that bench that is very attractive....
<<Last year, I made some new cabinets for my kitchen. I'm a pretty good craftsman, my work is nationally recognized, but ya know, I can't make kitchen cabinets.....>>
I think I disagree with your wording here: Perhaps this is nit-picking, but I would phrase that as something along the lines of, "At my current level of skill and with the tools I currently possess, I'm not very good at making commercial-style, sheet-goods type (kitchen) cabinets." Had you decided to build your kitchen cabinets out of solid wood, using "traditional" techniques and design, I suspect that you would have had very few significant problems designing, building, and installing them.
Anyway, just a few thoughts for your amusement and consideration.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
James,
Adding to the confusion is the apparent lack of distinction drawn by the craftsmen themselves between the terms "joiner'' and "cabinetmaker". According to the occupation tax list of 1783 in Phila, Thomas Affleck, Daniel Trotter, John Gillingham, and William Savery were all listed as joiners. Savery's label advertises that he does chairs and joiner's work. And the word cabinet maker didn't always confer the possesion of special abilities. Batty Langley wrote in 1740 that "it is difficult to find one cabinetmaker in Fifty...that can make a bookcase, &c. indispensibly true...without being obliged to a Joiner, for to set out the work."
As the styles of furnishings changed from primarily "joined" frame and panel forms to those with flat planar surfaces decorated with veneers or carving instead of moldings, it has been posited that the joiner was supplanted by the cabinetmaker, yet there is evidence, not just in the rural, but also the urban market that joiners went with the flow, and adapted to the demand for the new latest styles without finding it necessary to immediately change the name of their trade. Did they scrap their benches? I doubt it.
Ray
Ray,
Good points. Given that us colonists had a rather free-wheeling habit of doing things our own way, it's not surprising that (guild-enforced) distinctions between the trades, found in much of Europe at that time, blurred considerably here.
Nice observation, also, about the adaptability and flexibility of earlier woodworkers, be they joiners or cabinetmakers. If nothing else, our forefathers were a practical bunch.
Too many people seem to have the view that history was fixed and static during any given period; obviously, nothing could be farther from the truth, as we constantly see these days.
_____
Granite chips, anyone? I hear they go great with salsa.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Ray,Don't forget house painter or broom maker or cooper as well. I have seen advertisements from 18th century Boston and Salem where cabinetmakers advertised these other trades as well on their calling cards. Not uncommon to see a "jack of all trades" from the 17th or 18th century.It seems that making a living as a cabinetmaker/joiner was just as difficult then as it is now.J.P.
JP,
Yes, undertaker as well as making the coffins, too. I read that the term "undertaker" once held much the same meaning as our "contractor" nowadays, and the name followed the mortician's trade, rather than the woodworker's.
Ray
Ray,What you wrote is half true. Savery and Affleck, and Head (even Plumley) all called themselves joiners because they were members of the Joiner's Guild, or were apprenticed to those who were. But these were not finish carpenters making interiors, doors, windows, etc. They were all 95% cabinetmakers. So forget what they called themselves. The distinction is in their work. Here's the point: When you work with a hand saw and you have a day of sawing ahead of you and likely another tomorrow, you'll spend an hour to reshape your saw teeth or handle. You optimize your tools because it makes economic sense to do so. And you optimize for the work you do. Once hand tools became part time, the investment to optimize them no longer made sense. And the purchaser just wanted a cheap one for a quick job.The Japanese optimized their saws for the work they had at hand. If you have that work, you'd be smart to use their saws. There is literally 500 years of wisdom in those saws. But if you ask those saws to do different work in different conditions (like me working with plywood and drywall screws), you may not find their optimized form to be so advantageous. I think its the same with the benches.James thinks any old bench will do. I think he's wrong (and has either missed my point or disagrees with it). Traditional tools were designed for specific jobs. We'd do better if we knew what they were for, how they were used, and chose accordingly. That's my point.AdamP.S. I strongly agree with everything else you guys have written.
Adam,
So, in your estimation, what differentiates a joiner's bench from a cabinetmaker's bench? And what features prevent/hinder the use of one in the other's trade?
Ray
"what differentiates a joiner's bench from a cabinetmaker's bench?"Roubo is the only cabinetmaker who wrote about his trade in the whole of the 18th century. Neither Moxon (1687) nor Nicholson (1810?) were cabinetmakers, Moxon wasn't even a woodworker. Roubo wrote about Joinery and Cabinetmaking. The benches we generally associate with Roubo are from the Joinery book. These benches have been copied by Chris Schwarz and Rob Tarule.The French joiners' bench is characterized by its lack of vises. Only a single "crochet" or hook adorns the front of the bench. A planing stop and a few holes for holdfasts are all that disingusihes this bench from a thick topped table. Nicholson showed a similar joiners' bench- one apparently made from construction lumber. While it had a face vise of sorts, it lacked holdfast holes or secondary supports through the top. Its deep front apron removed any possibility of clamping to the top. 3 independant images of Nicholson style benches exist- all from the early 19th c, all depicting Joiners' shops, and all show bench tops unblemished by holdfasts. Just a single planing stop is evident. Nicholson recommended joiners build a long bench- in excess of 12'. Both Roubo and Diderot show what look to be 12' benches.But Roubo also wrote L'Art du Menuisier Ebeniste", his book about cabinetry. This book shows a very different bench, which he calls a "german" bench. There's a lot of evidence of French calling things German, and Germans calling things French. Kind of like our term "Danish" for pastry. So don't put too much stock in national differences. Roubo's "german" bench is a cabinetmaker's bench. It features two leg vises and a sliding tail vise. Its clearly shorter than the Joiners' benches and has both dog holes and holes for holdfasts. This is the bench I patterned by bench on, (but stupidly made too short).Diderot complicates things by depicting joiners' benches in his image of a French cabinetshop. (of course all the benches in Diderot look the same). So as I said initially, there isn't much evidence. But Didierot aside, joiners' benches all look roughly the same. They are long simple benches with an obvious lack of dedicated holding features. They are basically tables with planing stops. Cabinetmaker's benches, just using Roubo's images appear shorter and more sophisticated.what features prevent/hinder the use of one in the other's trade?Let's throw out prevent. This discussion isn't now and has never been about funtionality.If we were to make a chest of drawers, how would we hold the drawer sides for dovetailing on a French Joiner's bench? I hold those vertically in a vise today. How does one plane small stock on an English joiner's bench with nought but a single planing stop? How does one stick 8' of molding on a 6' Tage Frid bench with that crazy shoulder vise in the way? Tage Frid didn't stick molding by hand on his bench. That bench wasn't designed for taht sort of work and therein lies the point. I guess you could rip 4/4 walnut with a 14" long japanese saw. But that saw wasn't designed for that. There exists a saw that was designed for that. As we take hand tools more seriously, I think its helpful to place them into their proper, often historic context. Its been my experience that when the right tool is chosen, the heavens open up, and the heavenly chorus of angels sing. Or you can muddle through with the wrong tool.AdamP.S. Check out my blog entry entitled "The English Method" to see some specifics on using a Nicholson Bench. Make sure you read the comments.
Edited 3/23/2007 10:22 am ET by AdamCherubini
Perhaps I'm the only historically ignorant one here, but I'll risk a naive question: Can you describe the specific differences between a joiner and a cabinet-maker?
I guess in my mind, I always thought of cabinet-making as a sort of subset of joinery. Historically, what was the dilineation in tasks, skills, and products such that they would need significantly different benches?
Investigating my own question:
Well, according to Wikipedia, a joiner was more often like what we call a finish carpenter today. Though given the elaborate nature of the finish, doors, kitchen cabinets etc. of the Victorian etc. eras, clearly joiners were highly skilled and had some capcity to make furniture.
Wiki says cabinet maker is more what we might just call a furniture maker.
Edited 3/23/2007 10:16 am ET by Samson
Edited 3/23/2007 10:16 am ET by Samson
Can you describe the specific differences between a joiner and a cabinet-maker?That's a tough question to answer quickly.Let's try it this way- The Joiner's Guild in England, "The Worshopful Comapny of Joiners", it still exists but no longer as a trade guild per se, was formed in the 14th c. Like all guilds, the Joiners sought protection against competitors, in their case the Carpenters' Company. You see, before then, all woodworkers were essentially carpenters. And that's essentially how all other cultures were, like the Japanese. Carpenters, Joiners and furniture makers, were all the same person and the house and furniture evidenced this fact. Anyway, in 1632, the Joiners won a court decision that essentially banned carpenters from making "joined" house hold items. Carpenters could nail a bed together, but not mortise and tenon it. Basically what the joiners did was apply basic timberframing principles to household items (doors, windows, chairs, beds, tables etc, then prevent the timberframers from doing that sort of work.)Cabinetmaking came into being in the late 17th c, but the powerful joiners guild consumed the "box makers". So in terms of guilds, there was no distinction at that point nor through the beginning of the 18th c. But the job of making a dovetailed chest of drawers was sufficiently different from making a raised panel entry way door or wainscot, that there was a seperation in the work of the individuals. Now its true that joiners could and did make some furniture and that cabinetmakers did sometimes make wainscots outside of London where the Guild restrictions were less powerful. But generally speaking, 18th c cabinetmakers specialized in dovetailed carcases, veneers, carving, sometimes turning, while joiners made primarily interiors, more utilitarian furniture etc. That's the difference. It seems slight, but the woods worked, tools used, conditions, customers, were different enough to make the two trades very different in practice. So its one guild with two trades.That's the short answer! Adam
"The Japanese optimized their saws for the work they had at hand. If you have that work, you'd be smart to use their saws."What work did the Japanese have that they used saws for that was different than European woodworkers? The main difference that I can think of is the relatively increased use of softwoods, but then again, there's lots of pine furniture that was made in the U.S. and Europe.
Hi Wilbur,"What work did the Japanese have that they used saws for that was different than European woodworkers? "I think they had different woods as you say, but also made different stuff. Exactly what I can't say. And I think their economic situation was different as well. I think their middle class is relatively new for example.I build 18th c Anglo american stuff so I'm confident that my tools can do that sort of work efficiently. But since I've never seen comparable japanese furniture, I'm not confident those tools will function similarly*. I have some japanese saws, and I've not found them superior for this sort of work. They are great however for site work, work without a bench, work in cramped quarters etc.Adam
*This has been my experience over and over again. One can't expect hand tools to do absolutely everything. I recall making huge mortises in kiln dried hard maple for my latest work bench. The timber framing tools I had simply weren't designed for this wood. The augers weren't designed for it, or the chisels etc. I had gone outside the bounds, lost sight of the context and paid for it. I think I spent over one hour per mortise.
Adam,
<<James thinks any old bench will do. I think he's wrong (and has either missed my point or disagrees with it). Traditional tools were designed for specific jobs. We'd do better if we knew what they were for, how they were used, and chose accordingly. That's my point.>>
Actually, I don't think that just any old bench will do. My comment was, "For our purposes today -- since many (most??) of us are largely self-taught -- I'm not sure that the style of bench that one uses is all that important beyond it fitting in with the way one works, unless one...." Specifically, what I intended to convey (I probably could have worded this more clearly) was that the style of bench per se doesn't matter, as long as the design and features of the bench meet the woodworker's work requirements. In other words, if the woodworker does a lot of hand planing, then (s)he needs a bench designed and set up to handle hand planing effectively and efficiently, and so forth.
I think that there are a couple of different ways to approach "what a 'proper' bench is:" from a historical/traditional view point, and from at least two different functional view points -- (1) the type of work being done (cabinetmaking, chair making, carving, etc.) and, (2) the type of tools being used (power tools; hand tools; mixture of the two, perhaps with an emphasis on one or the other; etc.).
As you have pointed out, "Traditional tools were designed for specific jobs. We'd do better if we knew what they were for, how they were used, and chose accordingly." I agree. But, I also think that slavishly following tradition/historical precedent unnecessarily limits one to what was traditionally available and leaves little or no room for innovation. For someone who is trying to work in a historically-accurate, era-specific fashion, following known historical practices as closely as possible is a necessity, but I question its utility for a modern woodworker who is not trying to do historical re-enactment-type woodworking.
One of the things that I have learned while living in and travelling to other countries (while working for Uncle Sugar) was that no single culture has a monopoly on good (or bad) ideas, and that there are many equally effective and equally valid ways to accomplish the same thing; much of how a people approach something is embedded in the cultural norms for that society, and, as un-poetic as it may be, often nothing more than the way that they are used to doing that thing (this is not intended to be a negative comment, merely an observation): we drive on the right hand side of the road because we are used to doing so; the Brits and Japanese (amongst others) drive on the left hand side because they are used to doing it that way. Either will get you from Point A to Point B equally well.
To degree, the same thing can be said of the distinction between "German," "French," and "English" benches. All accomplish the same basic objective -- holding a piece of wood so that a tool could be applied to it -- but go about it in different ways, and have various advantages and disadvantages, depending on the particular work being done. Which one to use? Some of that decision depends on what you learned on, and what you are used to using.
Functionally, we're all quite aware that different types of work require different types of benches to work comfortably and efficiently. A carver's bench is substantially different from a chair maker's benches (i.e., a shave horse and an assembly bench), which, in turn, are different from a cabinetmaker's bench, etc. These all evolved to meet the requirements of the work being performed.
We can also look at benches from a tool-centric functional view point. The requirements for a bench used only -- or primarily -- for hand-tool woodworking is considerably different, both in form and function, from a bench used only or primarily for power tool woodworking.
Yet, even within those distinctions, the benches can and do differ significantly. As examples, in the hand tool arena, your (shop-built?) bench, my Sjöbergs bench, a Charlesworth-style bench, and a Klausz-style bench will all work perfectly well for a hand-tool-only woodworker (or for one that uses hand tools frequently). The physical set-up of each of these benches does impose some restrictions on the way that certain woodworking operations can/have to be done, but, one can do essentially all hand tool woodworking operations on any of them. Which of them works best for a given woodworker is in part a matter of personal preference and personal work style.
In the end, what a "proper" bench is depends, at least, on one's philosophical approach to woodworking, what kind of projects one builds, and what kind of tools one uses. Other factors will undoubtedly apply, too.
<<Here's the point: When you work with a hand saw and you have a day of sawing ahead of you and likely another tomorrow, you'll spend an hour to reshape your saw teeth or handle. You optimize your tools because it makes economic sense to do so. And you optimize for the work you do. Once hand tools became part time, the investment to optimize them no longer made sense. And the purchaser just wanted a cheap one for a quick job.>>
I agree that this probably applies to a majority of part-time (hobbyist) woodworkers. However, there is a growing sub-set of part-timers that finds "optimum" more important than "cheap." We're the ones that are debating these sometimes-fine points about what exactly "optimum" is, on forums like Knots (such as the last 25 or so posts in this thread), and also, in large part, are the ones that help keep guys like Tom Lie-Nielsen, Ray Iles, Mike Wenzloff, and others both in business and motivated to design and offer new/better tools.
And, finally, my apologies for any confusion my imprecisely-worded previous post may have caused.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Edited 3/23/2007 2:44 pm by pzgren
Samson:I wondered if he meant "flout" history rather than "flaunt" it.This is a very tricky area, because not only do we have the definition of "tradition" to worry about, but also all of the non-utilitarian but important emotional associations that go with tradition. Your argument is flawless from a utilitarian standpoint. If an object looks as good and has identical quality to another, why should anyone be at all concerned about what tools made it. Indeed, why should it matter if you or Peter or I made in it a shop by hand, or it was made using CNC routers and duplicating lathes?I have a friend who is quite a competent luthier. He is now studying ways of making his necks on the CNC router at the local high school. He doesn't see why anyone should care, if the resulting instrument looks and sounds as good either way. It is pretty hard to dispute this. I play two guitars, one a Japanse-made instrument from the late 1960, probaby factory made, and the other a handmade instrument from one of the great Spanish shops. The Spanish guitar is better, but it also cost me about 10 times as much, even adjusted for inflation, than what my parents paid for my earlier guitar. Yet the Japanese guitar has a lovely tone and good action, and if its tone and action were identical to the Spaniard, why would I rationally care?The answer cannot easily be quantified, and yet it is deeper, more significant that mere marketing. That is where you and I diverge. It is important to many people to have things that are of their own tradition, and a subset of those people care about "period" accuracy. Of course, it is also important to a broader group of people to have things that are hand made. Why it is important is beyone the scope of this thread, but it is not superficial.My point is that handmade items regardless of the tools used have no more utilitarian value than machine made ones of hypothetically identical kind and quality, and yet people do distinguish between them. (Note the hypothetical equality. Other than that one is machine made and the other is hand made, all else must be equal --ceteris paribus, as economists say. If anything differs -- if the handmade item has superiority of any kind, overt or subtle, the argument is not valid.)So, you cannot argue that distinguishing between the use of hand tools from various traditions is irrational, or a matter of mere marketing or commercial puffery unless you are willing to concede that a preference for handmade furniture is in itself irrational.
Joe you are attributing to me an argument I did not make do not believe: that hand made and power tool (CNC etc) created furniture are for all practical purposes identical. I said no such thing and do not believe any such thing.
As far as hand work, I agree with Glen-Drake Toolworks: "Why is hand cut joinery so inviting? We think it is because hand cut joinery softens what is physically a very rigid structure. There are ways to soften edges, but once a joint is together there is not much you can do to soften it. It has to be soft to start with, and machines leave rigid edges, not soft ones ...."
In short, there are differences to be clearly perceived between things like hand cut and router cut dovetails. They are not identical. However handcut DTs cut with a Western vs, a Japanese saw - not a perceptible difference. There are also many instances where early work with tailed apprentices has no effect on the later handwork and the finished piece.
As for sentimental value coming from knowing how something was made and with what tools, its certainly a valid point. If that's important to the owner, more power to them.
Sorry if I framed my argument in a way that it appeared that I was attributing those ideas to you. Clearly you never said that. I apologise for the confusion.In responding to your comments about traditional tools or traditional results, I was using the rhetorical device of carrying what I percieved your argument to be out to an extreme in order to better illustrate our differences. The points:that is it not irrelevant, or a matter of mere marketing that someone make something with traditional tools as opposed to whatever tools will most effectively get the job done, and that the same reasoning applies when someone prefers furnifture tooled in his or her own tradition.It is one of those unending discussions. Just hand around some fly fishermen some time. Their arguments on similar points make our debates look very boring.Edited 3/20/2007 7:52 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
Edited 3/20/2007 7:53 pm ET by Joe Sullivan
"There are also many instances where early work with tailed apprentices has no effect on the later handwork and the finished piece."I don't agree with this at all. I hear people saying it. And it always comes from people who don't or have never built something entirely by hand. I really don't mean to pick on you because I value your opinions. But this is a saw thread and I think this is topical.My view, my experience is that saws are the single biggest contributor to the way a piece of furniture looks. When I go to a show, everybody there makes furniture as you say but me. And they all say exactly what you say. But I think our pieces look nothing alike. I can't achieve uniformity, or I won't. Its just too much work. On the other hand- creating random widths, of backer boards say, I think takes more work than less with a table saw. Also, I use planes to correct or deal with saw cuts. So the way I use my planes, the planes I have, are different from others'. What I see and read and hear is almost always about the cosmetic use of planes. So my use of saws really drives the planes i have, how i think about them etc. I could go on and on about this. In the final analysis, planes don't really change that much. I don't change the thickness of most of my lumber to a great extent with my planes. To be able to work by hand or not as the case may be, really begins and nearly ends with hand saws. And the difference in the way a hand saw works and the way a power saw works- like you can't shave a little more off with a hand saw, is so great that the final product can't help but be effected.Yeah I meant flout, not flaunt. Sorry about that. I think the only way one can flaunt history is with gray hair and wrinkles!Adam
Edited 3/20/2007 9:31 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Strangely enough, I don't disagree at all. ;-)
I said:
"There are also many instances where early work with tailed apprentices has no effect on the later handwork and the finished piece."
"Many" is not "all." And you seem to interpret later hand work as smooth planing. I was thinking of more radical dimensioning of various sorts - tapering, cutting visible joints, carving, turning, etc.
Thickness and lack of uniformity are different matters, and I agree completely with your statements with one exception: I understand that you think it takes too much time to achieve uniformity and precise dimensions, but I don't see similar reluctance reflected in many period pieces of high quality and finish - at least on the parts that show (I'm thinking federal secretaries and the like here not a shaker end table with circular saw marks across the top). Dimensioning a board by hand is indeed time consuming, but I (like you no doubt) can make it 4 square and any dimension I wish if I so desire.
All that said, I find the more hand work I'm willing to do on given project the more soul it becomes imbued with and the more I like it. The further from machine repetitive "perfection" I'm willing to go, the more art in the piece and the better it is. Funny that, in a way.
Oh, and I've built several things "entirely by hand."
Oh, I wanted to add one thing, though it likely doesn't belong in this thread. On hand work in general. A lot of folks it seem look at handwork as somehow aspiring to achieve what machines do. I think this is misguided. It would be like a painter aspiring to achieve what cameras do. Sucess would mean failure for the piece in my opinion.
Instead the aim should be expressions that cameras and machines cannot dupilicate. This is a freedom that opens up broad expanses and produces literally original and uniquely valuable works.
All obvious I guess, but I feel the need to say it out loud now and then.
My grandmother (82) has a simple footstool probably made by someone on the family farm in her grandparents' generation. It is simple - a plank with roughly chamfered edges and four splayed almost rough hewn legs. It has tool marks all over it and a wonderful patina. It is so far from machined perfection, but it is stout and beautiful. I hope to make some things in my time that are as wonderful as that simple stool.
Samson,
Interesting and thought-provoking post!
<<Oh, I wanted to add one thing, though it likely doesn't belong in this thread. On hand work in general. A lot of folks it seem look at handwork as somehow aspiring to achieve what machines do. I think this is misguided.>>
I strongly agree with your contention that "handwork as somehow aspiring to achieve what machines do" is misguided. They are, IMO, two different beasts, both in conception and in execution.
Another thing that I find misguided, at best, is deliberately leaving (planing, saw, etc.) marks to show that a piece was done by hand. To me, this reeks of poor craftsmanship and almost a reverse snobbery of sorts. It says that the builder didn't care enough to put forth his/her very best effort.
Of course, machines are superb for uniformity and repeatability, and often have significant speed advantages, as well. But that very "perfection" also frequently leaves a rather cold, utilitarian, umm....machine-like aspect to the piece; there often is very little "warmth" to a (mass-produced) machine-made piece.
A well-executed, hand-made piece, on the other hand, perhaps by virtue of its very imperfection, seems to have an inviting warmth that machine-made pieces generally seem to lack. Of course, all of this could just be in my imagination, too.....
<<Instead the aim should be expressions that cameras and machines cannot dupilicate. This is a freedom that opens up broad expanses and produces literally original and uniquely valuable works.>>
Strongly agree!
Part of the difference between the two also is Pye's idea of workmanship of certainty vs workmanship of risk. With properly set-up, good quality power tools, there is a much higher probability of a "guaranteed" good result, but the use of the machine(s), in one sense, reduces the woodworker to filling the role of a technician, rather than that of a craftsman or an artisan. It also seems to often induce a demand for a level of precision usually found in machining metal; I find this amusingly ironic, considering that wood moves a lot more on a day-to-day basis than the size of the machining tolerances on most power tools.
Use of hand tools introduces an element of imprecision generally not present with power tools. Yet, ironically, it is very easy to routinely slice off a shaving of .001" or .004" with several hand tools -- hand plane, chisel, spokeshave -- while it is concurrently rather difficult to remove such a thin shaving with a power woodworking tool, at least not without a significant effort to set up the tool. On the other hand, cutting a straight line with a table saw is pretty easy and pretty straight-forward. With a hand saw, it is considerably more of a challenge, and usually requires hand planing for squaring-up and clean-up.
For me, one of the attractions of working with hand tools only is that the quality of the end result is entirely dependant on my best-effort application of the skills I currently possess. Not only does it give me the motivation to do my best on the project, but also to continuously seek adding new skills and improving the level of my current skills. Each project seems to get a little better (and shows me where my skills still need improvement).
(The above is not to say that the same thing doesn't also apply to using power tools, as well. They -- power tools -- simply have their own sets of skill-building challenges to overcome.)
Just some random musings on this woodworking thing we all enjoy so much.
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Another thing that I find misguided, at best, is deliberately leaving (planing, saw, etc.) marks to show that a piece was done by hand. To me, this reeks of poor craftsmanship and almost a reverse snobbery of sorts. It says that the builder didn't care enough to put forth his/her very best effort.
Hmmm, I think it's more complicated than this. For example, I HATE those mass produced pieces where components have been run through machines with hanging chains and rollers that ding up the wood to make it look rustic. It just screams out unconvincing kitsch to me. Buy, I have seen many Shaker and other utilitarian type pieces where tool marks were not left self-consciously, but rather because that's as much time as the builder had to put towards this effort and the stool or table or what have you looked fine and worked fine without smooth planing or whatever. It suited its intended use and other of life's demands insisted that no extra time be wasted to make it prettier or what have you. Tool marks in such instances do not bother me at all, and indeed are something i find inviting, interesting and rather appreciate.
In short, if the piece has come by the tool marks honestly, I don't mind them, and think of them like the rough brush strokes of impressionist paintings (that differed so from the finely blended works that proceeded them). Faked up tool marks self-consiously applied bug me.
Samson,
<<In short, if the piece has come by the tool marks honestly, I don't mind them, and think of them like the rough brush strokes of impressionist paintings (that differed so from the finely blended works that proceeded them). Faked up tool marks self-consiously applied bug me.>>
Well said!
.<!----><!----><!---->
Tschüß!<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->James<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...."
-- A.C. Clarke
Well done Joe, was +Joseph a carpenter or joiner+ just a thought during Lent
I prefer Pepsi, but RC Cola is the best!
Beachfarm,
No disrespect was intended. I was not trying to argue against your opinion, rather the statement that Japanese ____ (saws etc.) are more efficient.
Anyway, I drink coke? I assume you're a pepsi man? Oh am I kidding, I drink beer...
Buster
It is ufortunate that japanesse style saws are so hard to sharpen, although I am sure that before impulse hardening, whatever that is, they were all resharpened, I have a file made for it. They have evolved to being disposable blades, although the blades can be recycled, part of the sign of the times. My original folding Dozuki came with a second blade, which I am now using, and replacement blades are probably cheaper than paying to have a saw sharpened, but you do have to use special care, as it is more likely to break a tooth, than just dull it..
I find the speed and smoothness of cut and that it is so easy to hold the piece to be cut to be the most significent features.
Pedro
Pedro,
I fumbled around with western saws until I was able to get a saw that was relatively sharp. Then I discovered the Japanese saws with the impulse hardened teeth.
The Japanese saws work well and cut efficiently, but rather than dull, they seem to fail catastrophically.
Either I would lose teeth or they would deform under the cutting stress.
I was mainly cutting Oak and Poplar for stair parts and tread returns.
After about a year of messing around with the Japanese saws I bought a Lie Nielsen crosscut saw. This changed my mind.
Now I was released from the brittle grip of the Japanese saw and was able to service my own tool instead of buying a new blade. I think I bought 4 or 5 blades one year for my dozuki. At $30 a pop it adds up fast.
Since then I have gone on to change professions from carpenter to cabinetmaker and have not really considered Japanese saws.
I recently purchased a pair of panel saws from Mike Wenzloff and have to say that they truly out class the Japanese saws I used years ago. Although, I have not had the opportunity to use a traditional handmade Japanese saw, so I would assume the experience to be a little different than using a commercially produced (I used a Z saw) saw.
I have yet to see the advantage of pull sawing as opposed to push sawing. But that is of course my opinion.
I must say however, that being able to maintain the tool is of the utmost importance to me. So having to send out a Japanese saw to get sharpened, possibly to Japan, or buying a new blade every few months, just doesn't jive with me.
J.P.
Each to their own. I will say that I have never used my saws for general carpentry, I usually use a skill saw for that, but I have used them on birch, spruce, pine, poplar material up to 8/4 with no problems, and find their fine-cutting ability most useful.
As a point of interest, to my knowledge, Japanese wood workers "sat" or squated on there work to hold it down, which would give to the pull stroke.
Pedro
Edited 3/10/2007 1:34 pm by ptu
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled